KALA SINGH ALIAS SUKHWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Case Details
CRM-M-31747-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 CRM-M-31747-2025 Decided on: 26.08.2025 KALA SINGH ALIAS SUKHWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Facts
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 110 31.07.2023 Sardulgarh, Distt. Mansa 341, 324, 323, 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on vide DDR No.39 dated 10.03.2025) 1. The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. As per paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the translated copy of FIR annexed with the bail petition as Annexure P-1, which reads as follows: “Copy of Statement, Statement of Baljinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Sadhu Wala aged about 33 years M. No.94634xxxx, stated that I am resident of above stated address and work in Baba Jand Dass Printing Press at Sardulgarh Mandi. My brother also works with me, whose name is Gursewak Singh, we both brothers daily used to go from village Sadhuwala to Sardulgarh on 27.07.2023 both of us were going from our village for our work and when we reached near the school then Shagunpreet Singh son of Balwinder Singh armed with 'Dattar', Kala Singh son of Uggar Singh armed with stick (soti), Balwinder Singh @ Setti son of Uggar Singh armed with stick (soti) Jasveer Singh @ Gogi son of Uggar Singh armed with wooden log (Tamba) came from the side of their community residences (Dhani) and encircled us and Kala raised lalkara that today they should not be left unhurt. Then in the meantime Shagunpreet Singh gave blow of his armed 'dattar’ towards me and to ward off the same, I raised my left hand and the 'dattar' blow hit the little finger of my hand, then Kala Singh blow gave of his armed stick on me, which fell on my right shoulder and Baiwinder Singh @ Setti gave blow of his stick on my left leg and I fell down and while I was lying down Jasveer 1 JYOTI 2025.08.27 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-31747-2025 Singh Goggi gave blow of his wooden log (Tamba) which fell on the middle of my head. My brother Gursewak Singh who was little behind me, being afraid of them ran towards village for getting help and I also cried loudly and blood started oozing out from my hand and head. On seeing 2- 4 persons coming alongwith my brother from the bus stand side all these four persons ran away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons. My brother with the help of other people arranged for the vehicle and got me admitted in the Civil Hospital Sardulgarh. When these four encircled and inflicted injuries to me, the time was around 10:30 a.m. The cause of grudge for them to encircle us inflicting injuries is that family of Kala Singh etc. we have got committed theft of transformers from their fields, whereas we do not have any hand in that incident. Under that suspicion these four persons have inflicted injuries to me. Legal action be taken.” 4. The petitioners’ counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family. 5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioners repeat the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioners shall have no objection. 6. 7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which reads as follows: “10. Role of the petitioners: As per the statement of the victim on dated 27.07.2025 all the petitioners encircled the victim and inflicted injuries petitioner No.1 Kala Singh blow gave of his armed stick on him, which fell on his right shoulder and petitioner No.2 Balwinder Singh @ Setti gave blow of his stick on his left leg and complainant fell down and while complainant was lying down petitioner No.3 Jasveer Singh Goggi gave blow of his wooden log (Tamba) which fell on the middle of his head. Further as per doctor’s opinion out of 4 injuries mentioned in the above stated MLR injury No.1 was declared to be grievous rest all were declared to be simple due to that there was addition of offence under Section 326 IPC vide DDR No.19 dated 10.03.2025.” REASONING: 8. Petitioner was armed with stick and inflicted injury on the shoulder of the victim.
Legal Reasoning
The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage, but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. 9. JYOTI 2025.08.27 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie 2 CRM-M-31747-2025 analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioners make a case for bail. CONDITIONS: 11. Given above, provided the petitioners are not required in any other case, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioners shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 13. This order is subject to the petitioners’ complying with the following terms. The petitioners shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 14. The petitioners are directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioners shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioners shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 15. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioners shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victim JYOTI 2025.08.27 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3 CRM-M-31747-2025 until the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230. 16. Given the background of allegations against the petitioners, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioners shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of the uploading of this order on the official webpage of this Court and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioners shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 17. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 18. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioners notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. JYOTI 2025.08.27 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4 CRM-M-31747-2025 19. It is clarified that if the petitioners violate any bail condition, the State and/or the victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioners move for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so. 20. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioners another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioners also abide by the assurance made on the petitioners’ behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 21. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioners repeat the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 22. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 23. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Appellant-Accused can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 24. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 26.08.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE JYOTI 2025.08.27 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 5